When I speak of Go’d, I want to say the following

When I speak of Go’d, I speak from my faith perspective. This spiritual perspective is one perspective that my body operates. Speaking from my faith perspective I must remember all perspectives that are necessary for my integrity. There are the physical, the psychic, the social, the economic, the spiritual and the cultural perspectives. Before speaking of Go’d I am sitting down and speak to my body: Please give me my integrity. Integrity is not the absence of pain, of suffering and the presence of joy and happiness. Integrity is my consciousness that my resilience is fine and that I am capable of coping with what the case is. The assessment of my integrity is necessary for coming down, for calming down and for centering my consciousness exclusively on my consciousness. In the preparation for speaking of Go’d I need to feel ok, secure, and safe. The body has the capacity to give one this feeling of conscious certainty of oneself being ok. The way leading into meditation starts with bad feelings or good feelings, and with a lot of talk from and with different persons, enemies, friends, and indifferent ones. Participating in this inner film of estrangement does not lead anywhere. In the phase of calming, it is important to concentrate exclusively on my consciousness. I must leave all the persons, all conflicts, all environment, and I ask my body to give me my integrity. Being empowered to staying conscious of oneself and feeling secure and safe constitutes a source of enormous strength. It is a wonderful and amazing gift to experience one’s body operating peace and silence, leading from angst, worries and doubts to secure and quiet consciousness of one’s certainty of one’s integrity. Feeling safe and secure I do not have at my disposal, asking my body to operate my integrity is my choice. The consciousness of self-asserting contentedness does not need the talk of Go’d. Being thankful for my body empowering me to feel safe and secure and my growing amazement of this power is content enough for meditation.

It is important to insist on the fact that one body perspective cannot substitute for another. If the cardiovascular system is sick, one cannot substitute with social or economic or cultural perspectives for a functioning cardiovascular system. If the cardiovascular system does not work, one needs a diagnosis and a therapy, and not prayers. Concerning the perspectives of the body there is no compensation of functions. Praying is good but does not substitute healing the heart. Wanting to enter a meditation to receive an experience one calls experience of Go’d needs a bodily integrity. This does not mean that persons whose integrity suffers at one point or the other cannot experience a feeling of Go’d. The experience of Go’d is a gift to nature. In this sense grace is an apriori to nature or grace presupposes nature. The Christian tradition says gratia supponit naturam. Many mystics tell of a night of emptiness, despair, and abandonment which they have experienced in their lives. They wanted experience the mercy and love of Go’d but there was nothing. I do not have at my disposal experiences of Go’d’s compassion, I do have at my disposal claiming my integrity. A gift needs someone who receives the gift, otherwise there is nothing to give. Nature is a gift too, my body is a gift, my life is a gift. At the same time nature, body, life, and culture bring limits and laws, possibilities and restrictions, beginnings, and an ending. It was not my decision to get conceived and to survive birth. I am begotten, I got my life, and I am put into the world.

Many cultures developed rules for how to speak of Go’d. Following rules helps not creating misunderstandings that lead to non-sense. In the Hebrew Bible there is the faith description of how desperately Moses tried to see Go’d, and the Bible teaches that Moses never got to see Go’d. In Exodus chapter 33 we read in verses 18-20:

18 Then Moses said, "I pray Thee, show me Thy glory!"

19 The Lord answered, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will announce my name, the Lord, so you can hear it. I will show ·kindness [favor] to anyone to whom I want to show ·kindness [favor], and I will show ·mercy [compassion] to anyone to whom I want to show ·mercy [compassion]. 20 But you cannot see my face, because no one can see me and live (New American Standard Bible).

A faithful Jew not even pronounces the word Go’d when he reads the Thora. Coming to the tetragram, that is the four consonants signifying Go’d, a faithful Jew reads “Adonai”, which means “The Lord”. Faith-sentences do not describe persons and things; they do not say who Go’d is, they say what we think and how we feel about Go’d. I use the sign “Go’d” because we can say only what we mean but we cannot say who Go’d is. Using of the comma when writing God shows what I want to say: “The way you use the word ‘God’ does not show whom you mean – but, rather, what you mean” (Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1980b. Remarks on the Philosophy of Psychology. Vol. 2. Edited by G. E. M. Anscombe and G. H. von Wright, translated by G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 51e).

Paul, a son of Pharisees who became a Christian, sticks to the Jewish tradition. Go’d is invisible. Paul writes in the Letter to the Romans 1:20, written before the four Gospels: “Ever since the creation of the world, the invisible existence of God and his everlasting power have been perceived by the mind’s understanding of created things.” Romans 1:20, as all sentences of the Bible, is a faith sentence. We doubt that a verification is possible for the universally quantified sentence that all women, men, and queer perceived in their minds the everlasting power of Go’d. There will be some women, men and queer, or many women, men and queer who perceived by their minds the everlasting power of Go’d. Some people may believe in a creator, when meditating on life, the world and living things. In Christian faith the universe is a creation, and the creator is called Go’d. Big Bang happened about 14 billion years ago (Universum: Urknall - Weltall - Natur - Planet Wissen (planet-wissen.de). Nobody has ever seen Go’d and no human watched when Big Ban got started. Science tells us, there was a beginning of the universe and science is silent about what was before Big Bang. Creation is a faith term.

Paul testifies to the invisibility of Go’d also in the First Letter to Timothy: “Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen (1Ti 1:17 New American Standard Bible). Paul addresses Go’d using biblical tradition as “king”. “King” is regularly used in the New Testament as faith term, but also as a historical term. A king usually possesses a kingdom, in the case of Go’d this is called “kingdom of Go’d” or “reign of Go’d”. I am eager observing that my use of the word Go’d does not pretend showing whom I mean but what I mean. In the 21st century CE I do not want to mean that Go’d is to be seen as the most powerful of all historic kings of earth. I mean Go’d to see as creator and when Jesus announces in Marc 1, 15a that “the kingdom of Go’d has arrived” it is for me the announcement of the hope that Go’d makes announce Jesus the just world of Go’d, that is the hope and promise that everything will come to a good end. Speaking of the kingdom of Go’d or speaking of the just world of Go’d means an affirmation of the faith that Go’d is the Lord of creation and will care for a good end of creation. When I speak of “Go’d’s just world” I make use of the translation of the term “Kingdom of Go’d” by the German Bible in just language (Bibel in gerechter Sprache. Editors: Ulrike Bail, Frank Crüsemann, Erhard Domay, Jürgen Ebach, Claudia Jannsen, Hanne Kohler, Helga Kuhlmann, Martin Leutzsch und Luise Schottroff. Gütersloh: Verlagshaus Gütersloh. 2007).

Paul’s disciples stayed faithful to the principle of the invisibility of Go’d. The Letter to the Colossians was not written by Paul and we hear about the invisible Go’d, when the author writes about Jesus Christ: “He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation (Colossians 1:15 New American Standard Bible).” This verse tells us a rule for speaking correctly of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is a faith term. We cannot say much about the historic Jesus besides the testimony of two non-Christian Latin authors. As Christians it is important what we believe when we say we believe in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ must not be identified with Go’d. An image is not the same as the original. Well, one can rightly say that if you cannot see the original, that is Go’d, you cannot take a picture and there is no image. That is true. It is faith that says that Jesus Christ is the image of the invisible Go’d. It is my faith that sees in Jesus Christ an image of Go’d. It is also my hope that Jesus Christ is living. This hope is the hope for me living after my death, just as I hope and believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. In the last sentence I use the predicator “living” in the foggy meaning of me being in some state of affairs. One way of the Christian Bible to confess the resurrection of Jesus Christ is to say, “Jesus Christ is the first-born of all creation”. “First-born after death” is not the expression of an absolute contradiction and non-sense; the expression rather signifies the transition from a faith sentence, that is first-born, to a sentence, that is death. Changing in a complex sentence constantly between a logic of two truth values and a logic of three truth values is characteristic of the Bible. Theologians, women, men and queer very often cannot resist the temptation to stay unclear about what kind of logic they want to see applied to their works, and often not even try to be honest with oneself when theologizing.

The tradition of the Roman Catholic Church observed the principle of the invisibility of Go’d until present days. The documents of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) refer to the Bible. The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium cites in number 2, the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World Gaudium et Spes cites in numbers 10 and 22, and the Dogmatic Constitution on Revelation Dei Verbum cites in number 2 the Letter to the Colossians 1, 15. Dei Verbum also cites 1 Timothy 1, 17. The Bible, the revelation of Go’d affirms the invisible Go’d.

There is nothing wrong with saying what we mean speaking of experiences that touch profoundly our life and that there are experiences where I say that I experienced Go’d. There is nothing wrong that we try to express our experiences. There is nothing wrong trying to speak of Go’d, on the contrary: women, men and queer incessantly spoke and speak of Go’d throughout history. When speaking of Go’d it is important to affirm that we speak of our thoughts and feelings, that we communicate our experiences but principally cannot say who Go’d is. It is ok that we communicate, but to speak as Christians of an auto communication of Go’d to women, men and queer is non-sense. It simply does not make sense to attribute predicators from our universe, world, and life on earth to Go’d pretending to write about who Go’d is. It is a nice try to speak of Go’d auto communicating love, but it does not make sense speaking like this. First, communication is characteristic of humans, animals, plants and of the photons of light. Second, my nature is not even certain of assessing love in my own life, concerning love there is sometimes subjective certainty, objectively my love is characterized by fragility. It does make sense to say that I experienced an overwhelming feeling of being accepted and loved, and for me it is self-evident that I experienced Go’d in the moment when I feel loved. But it does not make sense to speak of Go’d knowing I do not know Go’d and using highly sophisticated terms like auto-communication pretending I am able to say more than I mean. I cannot dispose about Go’d, I can use the word Go’d.

What causes me to use the word Go’d? There are many reasons why I try to say what I mean when using the word Go’d. One reason is my reaction to look at the world. Wittgenstein writes in Tractatus 6. 44: “Not how the world is, is the mystical, but that it is.” That there is the world, that there was Big Bang 14 billion years ago and that with Big Bang there was everything for developing a universe and even planet earth, that is the mystical. The fact is astonishing, that after all evolving from the beginning, there are women, men and queer who are empowered to make senses with sentences. I sincerely hope it will not take another 14 billion years for women, men and queer to learn empowering each other for living together in justice and peace.

Karl Rahner (1904-1984) was not stupid speaking of auto-communication, he was a little bit blinded by the attention and success he was getting in the public. In private he was modest, and he often expressed doubts. He was inspiring to his Jesuit brothers, at least for those who were ready to listen and talk to him. In Innsbruck Jesuit College in his theological and philosophical discussions with Karl Rahner his Jesuit brother Vladimir Richter learned that it was fundamental to be able to theologize based on a reflected logic for theological knowledge and insight (Richter, Vladimir. 1964. “Logik und Geheimnis.” In Philosophische Grundfragen, theologische Grundfragen, biblische Themen. Vol. 1 of Gott in Welt: Festgabe für Karl Rahner 1, edited by Johannes Baptist Metz, Walter Kern, Adolf Darlapp and Herbert Vorgrimler. 188–207. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder 189).

The turn from a two-valued logic to the criticism of the principle of the excluded third was important for speaking about themes like the mystical that the Tractatus thought one must be silent on. Wittgenstein writes in Tractatus 6.522: “There is indeed the inexpressible. This shows itself; it is the mystical.” Richter discovered in his investigations of a possible logic of the mystical that the logic of the mystical resembles the logic of the so-called insoluble problems of mathematics (Richter, Vladimir. 1965. Untersuchungen zur operativen Logik der Gegenwart. 42. Freiburg: Karl Alber).

When Richter speaks of the mystical and of theological knowledge he means sentences about Go’d, theology speaking about Go’d. Richter found that the logical structure is similar if we compare the sentences of theology and the sentences of mathematics, for which we do not have at our disposal a method with which we can decide exclusively with the truth-value true or the truth-value false. For example, we have in mathematics no procedure to decide the question whether all perfect numbers are even or whether there are perfect numbers that are odd numbers.

Perfect numbers are natural numbers that equal the sum of their proper divisors. The number 6 is, for example, a perfect number because 6 = 1 + 2 + 3. The number 28 is also a perfect number: 28 = 1 + 2 + 4 + 7 + 14 (ibid.). In order to answer the question whether there are perfect odd numbers we would have to construct a potentially infinite sequence of single operations asking: Is the number 3 a perfect number? Is the number 5 a perfect number? ect. (Richter 1965: 43). We will obtain answers to these individual questions, but we do not have at our disposal some rule or algorithm for answering the question in general. The lack of this kind of rule or decision procedure for answering our question leads to the recognition of insoluble questions or questions that we cannot decide and Richter documents that in 1931 Gödel presented the general proof for the existence of insoluble problems in mathematics (ibid.). Wittgenstein accepted in 1930 Brouwer’s criticism of the axiom of the excluded third (Richter 1965: 47) and opens the a priori of the sense of the sentence and the speech-acts to the investigation of the great variety of language games (Richter 1965: 49).

The impossibility of deciding based on a two-valued logic that would be able either to prove right or to prove wrong the sentence that there is an odd number that is a perfect number leads to a third possibility. This third possibility consists of a logic that accepts not being able to positively prove a sentence right or wrong and therefore turns to a logic of proving wrong the principle of the excluded third. This kind of logic would be capable of proving wrong the refutation of the truth-value true for theological sentences and accepts not being able to prove right the theological sentence in question.

Today it is no longer a scandal to theologize as a Catholic Christian on the basis that accepts that sentences of religious beliefs such as expressed by words like “the mystical, creation or creator”, cannot positively be proven to be the case and cannot correspond with the truth-value true or false of the two-valued logic of empirical science. Richter insists on the necessity of using a three valued logic in theology; theology needs to demonstrate its awareness of the difference between the refutation of the refutation and positive demonstrability (Richter 1964: 196).

Using the truth value “I do not know”, or “We cannot know” is no shame for theologians expressing faith-sentences, on the contrary: the three valued logic is a first credibility condition for theologizing.